Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Sumitra Devi and anr. Vs. Smt. Gita Narula
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)851; 90(2001)DLT185; 2001(58)DRJ145
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The present petition arises out of an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the course of hearing it appears that a statement was made on behalf of Petitioners that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the Petitioners the recording of the statement was immediately ended. After hearing arguments on the same day, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that the petition was not maintainable under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and that, thereforee, no opportunity was given for cross-examination. It is this Order that has been assailed by the Petitioners/landlord in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. At the very threshold learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent had taken an objection pertaining to the non maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was his contention that the lan...
Narendra Singh JaIn Vs. Shri R.P. Saroj (Deceased) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT232; 2001(57)DRJ833; 2001RLR258
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Respondent/Landlord has filed the present Eviction Petition, inter alia, under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller in terms of his Order dated 31.7.1995. Thereafter, the Landlord filed an Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. By his Order dated 1.5.2000, while allowing the Appeal, the Tribunal observed as follows:of DDA and the notice served upon the appellant sufficiently shows that premises are being used for office purpose which apparently is a use contrary to the conditions imposed upon him by DDA while giving him lease of land on which the premises are situate. In such an eventuality there was no other option open to the Ld. trial court than to grant the respondent time to comply with the conditions imposed by DDA referred in the clause or pay to that authority such amount by way of compensation as the case may be. In view of the foregoing reasons I accept the appeal, set aside the im...
Shri Bhagwan Hosiery Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)663; 91(2001)DLT399; [2001(89)FLR701]; (2001)IILLJ179Del; 2001ICLR971
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.3 had been engaged by him on 1.12.1973 and Respondent No.4 in November 1986, as piece rate workers. On 7.9.1987 Respondent No.3 collected a sum of Rs.650/- as full additional payment of the (SIC) and Respondent No.4 similarly collected a sum of Rs.990/- as full and final payment of his dues in the same month, on 24.9.1987. A few days thereafter Statements of Claims appear to have been filed by these Respondents and on the failure of Conciliation Proceedings, the following dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court vide order No.F.24(4109)87-Lab/39823-28 dated 16.12.1987 : 'Whether the services of S/Shri Sunder Lal, Sri Ram & Bali Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?' 2. The Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards costs to the workmen which appear not to have been pa...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Prudential Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)232; 90(2001)DLT143; 2001(57)DRJ696
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to directions given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short the 'Act'), the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B'(for short the 'Tribunal'):'For Assessment Year 1974-75 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rupees 13,605/- made by the ITO on account of penalty paid to the Delhi Development Authority for the misuse of the premises occupied by the assessed for the purpose of business? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the commercial use of the premises meant for residential use by the assessed does not amount to infraction of law and the penalty paid in pursuance thereof is incidental to the business of the assessed and such expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business u/s 37 of the...
Rolta India Limited and anr. Vs. Elbee Services Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)444; AIR2001Delhi353; 92(2001)DLT232; 2001(58)DRJ330
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Plaintiff No.1, a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of manufacture, import, supply & erection/commission of the sophisticated and advanced computer equipment system. Plaintiff No.2 is a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India and is mainly engaged in the business of general insurance. Defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of transporting for hire and/or reward property or goods from place to place, inter alia, by land for all persons and, thereforee, comes within the expression 'Common Carrier' as per Carriers Act 1865.2. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,42,46,127/- claimed from the defendant on account of the damages caused to the packages delivered to the defendant for transportation and consequential loss to the plaintiff.3. Put briefly the facts are as under:Plaintiff No.1 was awarded a contract by the Forest Survey of India, Dehradun (hereinafter re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gem Financiers and Distributors P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR786(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN75(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that add backs of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 2,983 asmade by the Income-tax Officer were rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?'2. A brief reference to the facts would suffice : For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessed made certain claims for business promotion expenditure. The assessed is a distributor of commercial films in the territories of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessed incurred an expenditure of Rs. 15,674 towards the premier show of a film. The break-up of the same is as follows :Rs.(a) Ashoka Hotel bill for lodging and bo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Span Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)259; [2001]249ITR333(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (the 'Tribunal' in short), has referred the following question under section 256{1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the entry made for development rebate reserve after March 31, 1976, would meet the requirements of section 34(3) ?' 2. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessed filed its original return on July 16, 1976. In the profit and loss account and balance-sheet filed along with the original return, the assessed had not shown any claim relating to development rebate reserve. Immediately thereafter a revised return was filed and in the profit and loss account and balance-sheet annexed thereto development rebate reserve was shown on the basis of the entries made in the books of account. The amount in question was Rs. 1,0...
Kanahya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR320(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In these two reference applications, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short 'The Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessed so far as the first two questions are concerned, and at the instance of the Revenue so far as the third question is concerned :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, was applicable to the case of the assessed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the income arising to Shri Deepak Aggarwal in the firm of Rakesh Deep was otherwise includible to the total income of the assessed ?3. Whether, on the...
B. Singh Chatrath and Sons. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN387(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. At the instance of the assessed, following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', Delhi under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessed held the plot from the date of execution and registration of the deed of sale, i.e., 5-9-1974, and that the capital gain arising from the sale of of the said plot was a short-term capital gain ?'2. Dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76. Factual position, as indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows :-The assessed had purchased plot no. 255, measuring 200 sq. yards. in Block 'M', Greater Kailash, New Delhi from DLF for Rs. 8,500. The requisite document was registered on 5-9-1974. The assessed sold half of the plot as per sale deed dated 31-3-1975. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)262; [2001]249ITR359(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN724(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B ('the Tribunal' in short), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of determining the income under the head 'Capital gains' the assessed was entitled to claim the previous year ending December 25, 1975, under the provisions of section 3(1)(c) ?' 2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed was a partner in the firm, Jaipur Golden Transport Carriers, and also derived income from salaries, interest and dividend. For the assessment year 1976-77, the last date of the previous year for different sources of income as declared by the assessed was March 31, 1976. The assessed made a disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Weal...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »